1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and No. 1, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Moman Capital”) leased KRW 27,00,000 to the Defendant on December 30, 2013, and Hyundai Capital filed an application for payment order with the Defendant under Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2014 tea37491 on the ground that the above loan claim against the Defendant was the cause of the claim, and the Defendant did not raise any objection despite being served with the original copy of the payment order, and the payment order became final and conclusive on September 2014. The Plaintiff received the above loan claim against the Defendant from Hyundai Capital on May 20, 2016 and received the said loan claim against the Defendant on the credit transfer at that time.

3. According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act, the payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. Thus, the filing of a new suit concerning the same subject matter of lawsuit is not permitted as there is no benefit of protection of rights, barring special circumstances such as interruption of prescription, and the party’s successor is also entitled to enforce compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause. Therefore, the above loan claim remains for more than seven years as of the date of closing argument of this case, and it is difficult to view that the ten-year extinctive prescription

4. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to protect the rights.